The Treasury used to soften public opinion leading up to a Budget by leaking, the previous weekend, dire predictions of tax increases and spending cuts which proved to be groundless, thus leaving the public relieved things were not worse.
In the case of the local government settlement, there has been no attempt to soften opinion. In the weeks before the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR), there were dire predictions that local government was going to get clobbered. Sure enough, in the CSR, local government was clobbered. In the run-up to the settlement, there were more predictions that local government would get a hammering in the settlement. This week it did. You could certainly not accuse ministers of spinning. They have never bothered to disguise the fact that local government is the Aunt Sally of public spending cuts, nor deviated from their insistence from day one in power that town and county halls will bear the brunt to spare education, health and international development.
The public themselves are certainly aware that their councils are being squeezed from above. In some cases, they may even have noticed certain services are being curtailed. But, generally, the impact has yet to be truly felt. Even the national media are starting to get bored with stories about branch libraries under threat and potholes unfilled, partly because they ran the same stories the day after the CSR, when local government got its hammering then and partly because they are yet to occur in any quantity. What the media require is human interest – a tragedy, a catastrophe, blame to be apportioned, either to hapless council officials or heartless ministers who have slashed budgets.
But that is in the future and hopefully, never. For the next few weeks, councils will attempt to absorb their revenue downturns with the minimal impact on frontline services. If they can manage, it will be a super-human achievement. If not, then the library cuts and unfilled potholes will be superseded by far bigger stories of strategic service reductions – and ministers will be asking themselves whether, after all, it was a good idea to deal local government such a bad hand.
On that cheery note – a happy Christmas to you all!
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Bill for the long term
In the revolving door that was the secretary of state’s office responsible for local government under Labour (Prescott, Byers, Prescott again, Miliband, Kelly, Blears, Denham) each new incumbent tended to regard having their own white paper as a badge of office.
The coalition in contrast appears to have decided that one local government Bill is quite enough for one Parliament. Considering that it is both unravelling 13 years of Labour policy (and in the case of scrapping the Audit Commission previous Tory policy as well) along with setting out its own stall for local government until 2015 it is hardly surprising the Localism Bill is due to run to 200 clauses. Indeed the diminutive local government minister Bob Neill joked last week at a conference that although he had a copy of the Bill on his desk he could still see over the top of it.
Actually, most of the Localism Bill’s contents have been fairly straightforward to put together and much has already been well trailed. The stumbling block which has delayed its publication to the point at which civil servants fear they might be sharing the Christmas Day turkey with Eric Pickles has been over creating directly elected mayors in the 12 English cities outside London. Big city councils do not like them. They did not like them when they were Tony Blair’s Big Idea a decade ago either. And you can be sure Eric and his team have not been shoe-horning mayors into the Bill only to see the only take-up come from shire districts.
But despite its breadth, will the Bill live up to its name? Despite their insistence on a localist agenda coalition ministers have been tempted so far to intervene on anything from council newspapers and chief executive salaries to council tax levels and fortnightly bin collections. Is Big Society an opportunity or a threat to councils? And the absence of any serious push towards Total Place or community budgeting outside the 16 pilots is disappointing considering how many savings have been identified from previous studies.
However the biggest challenge by far is implementing these changes in the midst of unprecedented cuts in public spending. That will be the real test both for the Bill and for localism.
The coalition in contrast appears to have decided that one local government Bill is quite enough for one Parliament. Considering that it is both unravelling 13 years of Labour policy (and in the case of scrapping the Audit Commission previous Tory policy as well) along with setting out its own stall for local government until 2015 it is hardly surprising the Localism Bill is due to run to 200 clauses. Indeed the diminutive local government minister Bob Neill joked last week at a conference that although he had a copy of the Bill on his desk he could still see over the top of it.
Actually, most of the Localism Bill’s contents have been fairly straightforward to put together and much has already been well trailed. The stumbling block which has delayed its publication to the point at which civil servants fear they might be sharing the Christmas Day turkey with Eric Pickles has been over creating directly elected mayors in the 12 English cities outside London. Big city councils do not like them. They did not like them when they were Tony Blair’s Big Idea a decade ago either. And you can be sure Eric and his team have not been shoe-horning mayors into the Bill only to see the only take-up come from shire districts.
But despite its breadth, will the Bill live up to its name? Despite their insistence on a localist agenda coalition ministers have been tempted so far to intervene on anything from council newspapers and chief executive salaries to council tax levels and fortnightly bin collections. Is Big Society an opportunity or a threat to councils? And the absence of any serious push towards Total Place or community budgeting outside the 16 pilots is disappointing considering how many savings have been identified from previous studies.
However the biggest challenge by far is implementing these changes in the midst of unprecedented cuts in public spending. That will be the real test both for the Bill and for localism.
Wednesday, 1 December 2010
A little too much of a hurry..?
As the row over the front-loading of grant cuts rumbles on to the 11th hour of the postponed financial settlement – any bets on publication, Christmas Eve at 11pm? – is this the time to feel a tad sorry for Eric Pickles?
The self-confessed ‘fat man in a hurry’ may have been perhaps a little too hasty when presenting himself before the Star Chamber, back in the autumn. When dealing with the Treasury, it is always wise to a) read the small print on any deal before signing, and b) check your pockets before leaving. These people are past masters at relieving Cabinet ministers of large amounts of cash without them even noticing.
The fact is, Eric has done a sterling job for his coalition and deserves a warming brandy at Chequers from the boss on Christmas Day for the way he volunteered local government for the lion’s share of the cuts in the Spending Review. His Cabinet colleagues, particularly health, the Department for International Development and education, will doubtless have slapped him on the back, relieved that his sacrifice has spared their own.
And to be fair to Eric, he will have returned from his Star Chamber encounter feeling that, while the local government settlement was tough, it was no more than expected by the sector itself – and, indeed, there was the benefit of an extra £1bn for councils to tackle adult care on top.
The problem is the front-loading element of the cuts which Eric and his colleagues now realise is rapidly becoming a large elephant trap, opening out before them. Unfortunately, unlike shoppers buying their Christmas gifts, there is no cooling-off period with the Treasury. The deal has been made and Eric is stuck with it.
He may thrash about, asking councils to look down the backs of their sofas for cash reserves, but as things stand, the front-loading is set to be a massive headache. And just when the bad press starts about library closures, old folk in unheated homes, streetlights turned off and roads pockmarked with holes, Eric will find his Cabinet colleagues are suddenly nowhere to be seen. It’s a brutal world, politics.
The self-confessed ‘fat man in a hurry’ may have been perhaps a little too hasty when presenting himself before the Star Chamber, back in the autumn. When dealing with the Treasury, it is always wise to a) read the small print on any deal before signing, and b) check your pockets before leaving. These people are past masters at relieving Cabinet ministers of large amounts of cash without them even noticing.
The fact is, Eric has done a sterling job for his coalition and deserves a warming brandy at Chequers from the boss on Christmas Day for the way he volunteered local government for the lion’s share of the cuts in the Spending Review. His Cabinet colleagues, particularly health, the Department for International Development and education, will doubtless have slapped him on the back, relieved that his sacrifice has spared their own.
And to be fair to Eric, he will have returned from his Star Chamber encounter feeling that, while the local government settlement was tough, it was no more than expected by the sector itself – and, indeed, there was the benefit of an extra £1bn for councils to tackle adult care on top.
The problem is the front-loading element of the cuts which Eric and his colleagues now realise is rapidly becoming a large elephant trap, opening out before them. Unfortunately, unlike shoppers buying their Christmas gifts, there is no cooling-off period with the Treasury. The deal has been made and Eric is stuck with it.
He may thrash about, asking councils to look down the backs of their sofas for cash reserves, but as things stand, the front-loading is set to be a massive headache. And just when the bad press starts about library closures, old folk in unheated homes, streetlights turned off and roads pockmarked with holes, Eric will find his Cabinet colleagues are suddenly nowhere to be seen. It’s a brutal world, politics.
Wednesday, 24 November 2010
A re-appraisal or a U-turn
Like nature, politics abhors a vacuum. As Ed Miliband is finding, appearing to be doing very little is a sure way of being accused of lacking leadership. The important part of a politician’s job spec is to engage in frenetic activity.
Coalition ministers have certainly been putting this into practice. The last few months have seen a dizzying succession of policy announcements, White Papers and Whitehall restructuring. The Tory conference fringe last month was a hotbed of packed workshops and eager ministerial speakers as the policy pointy-heads feverishly mapped out their plans for the New Age.
So it is perhaps unsurprising that in this bedlam of activity policy has sometimes been made on the hoof or without sufficient thought to the law of unintended consequences (LUC). Last week’s ‘leak’ of plans to fund schools through a new quango caused such an uproar ministers had to backtrack. Over at the CLG, changes to social housing tenancies have quietly contained a get-out clause in case the policy leads to LUC. The abolition of the Audit Commission is going to have huge ramifications for the council audit function.
And ministers are now taking another look at the way council grant cuts have been front-loaded into the first year, hinting that when the settlement appears in a fortnight there could well be flexibilities to spread the pain. Under the Spending Review plans, the gentlest year for cuts is in 2013/14 at 0.8% – nothing to do with county elections of course – compared with a tough 8.4% (and the rest) next year.
There are of course councils who believe it is better to get the pain over and done with rather than drag it out. But it is also clear that swingeing cuts will be on the cards with services slashed, libraries closed, street lights turned off etc and ministers can see themselves on the receiving end of public opprobrium.
Some may call this rethink it a U-turn, others a sensible reappraisal of a complex brief. It is certainly better to make changes before rather than after new policies have been enshrined in law. But hyperactive ministers may also want to ensure that in their eagerness to be pro-active they do not store up problems for themselves in the future when the chickens come home to roost.
Coalition ministers have certainly been putting this into practice. The last few months have seen a dizzying succession of policy announcements, White Papers and Whitehall restructuring. The Tory conference fringe last month was a hotbed of packed workshops and eager ministerial speakers as the policy pointy-heads feverishly mapped out their plans for the New Age.
So it is perhaps unsurprising that in this bedlam of activity policy has sometimes been made on the hoof or without sufficient thought to the law of unintended consequences (LUC). Last week’s ‘leak’ of plans to fund schools through a new quango caused such an uproar ministers had to backtrack. Over at the CLG, changes to social housing tenancies have quietly contained a get-out clause in case the policy leads to LUC. The abolition of the Audit Commission is going to have huge ramifications for the council audit function.
And ministers are now taking another look at the way council grant cuts have been front-loaded into the first year, hinting that when the settlement appears in a fortnight there could well be flexibilities to spread the pain. Under the Spending Review plans, the gentlest year for cuts is in 2013/14 at 0.8% – nothing to do with county elections of course – compared with a tough 8.4% (and the rest) next year.
There are of course councils who believe it is better to get the pain over and done with rather than drag it out. But it is also clear that swingeing cuts will be on the cards with services slashed, libraries closed, street lights turned off etc and ministers can see themselves on the receiving end of public opprobrium.
Some may call this rethink it a U-turn, others a sensible reappraisal of a complex brief. It is certainly better to make changes before rather than after new policies have been enshrined in law. But hyperactive ministers may also want to ensure that in their eagerness to be pro-active they do not store up problems for themselves in the future when the chickens come home to roost.
Wednesday, 17 November 2010
Merging members as well as officers
Local government is not usually a source of rampant controversy in Westminster, except when it comes to reorganisation, which has a brutal history for Conservatives. It scarred MPs and ministers in the early 1990s and it reopened old sores a decade-and-a-half later when Labour planned for the nine new English unitaries, operating from April 2009.
With county Tory leaders keen to see new unitary counties against the policy of Conservative Central Office – which had a protective arm round its district foot soldiers – the scene was set for severe behind-the-scenes arm-twisting. In the end, the Tory front bench could not avoid the creation of unitary counties, but its members were adamantly against any more reorganisation and, indeed, blocked plans in Devon, Norfolk and Suffolk days after forming the coalition last May.
But there are indications that this policy is evolving. First, Conservative ministers are not, in principle, opposed to councils merging and, indeed, they positively encourage it because of the savings generated. Second, mergers are gathering momentum out of sheer economic need and no longer are they confined to cash-strapped districts but spreading to London boroughs. Third, the local government political landscape will start turning red from next spring, and there will be less incentive for the coalition to be quite so bothered about having fewer councils. And fourth, it is difficult to argue that councils should merge managements and services yet retain all the elected members with all their costs.
Some districts are already looking at full member mergers or reducing numbers – as is a unitary such as Telford and Wrekin – so it is unsurprising that the Boundary Commission has now registered this changed scenario and is consulting on how to enable councils to reduce the number of members, if they so wish. Critics will argue this means a diminished democratic capacity, but with some shire districts having the same number of members as London boroughs this is a moot point.
So long as the councils retain their outward-facing identities it is unlikely the public, if consulted during a referendum, will object. It is an inevitable consequence of management mergers.
With county Tory leaders keen to see new unitary counties against the policy of Conservative Central Office – which had a protective arm round its district foot soldiers – the scene was set for severe behind-the-scenes arm-twisting. In the end, the Tory front bench could not avoid the creation of unitary counties, but its members were adamantly against any more reorganisation and, indeed, blocked plans in Devon, Norfolk and Suffolk days after forming the coalition last May.
But there are indications that this policy is evolving. First, Conservative ministers are not, in principle, opposed to councils merging and, indeed, they positively encourage it because of the savings generated. Second, mergers are gathering momentum out of sheer economic need and no longer are they confined to cash-strapped districts but spreading to London boroughs. Third, the local government political landscape will start turning red from next spring, and there will be less incentive for the coalition to be quite so bothered about having fewer councils. And fourth, it is difficult to argue that councils should merge managements and services yet retain all the elected members with all their costs.
Some districts are already looking at full member mergers or reducing numbers – as is a unitary such as Telford and Wrekin – so it is unsurprising that the Boundary Commission has now registered this changed scenario and is consulting on how to enable councils to reduce the number of members, if they so wish. Critics will argue this means a diminished democratic capacity, but with some shire districts having the same number of members as London boroughs this is a moot point.
So long as the councils retain their outward-facing identities it is unlikely the public, if consulted during a referendum, will object. It is an inevitable consequence of management mergers.
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Increasing fees is not the answer
It is only half true that the real recession in local government will only bite next year.
For those councils, especially districts, relying for part of their income from fees and charges, the private sector recession which struck in late 2007 saw a sharp downturn in residents’ spending. Westminster City, for example, estimated a drop of £50m in parking charges alone.
The property collapse meant a slump in planning applications and land search income. Cash-strapped residents cut back on swimming or gym use. One district chief executive told me two days after the CSR last month: ‘Two-thirds of my district’s income is in fees and charges, and we were badly hit by the recession.’
The economy remains fragile, the housing market has declined again, disposable income is squeezed by static wages, price rises in petrol, food, energy and clothing, and public spending cuts are giving people the jitters. In short, there is no evidence that residents are any more inclined to shell out more for local services.
So, the survey reported on page one finding that a more than two-thirds of council chiefs expect to see rises in local charges with one-third expecting them to be substantial reveals either naivity about consumer spending or desperation. Unless you are a monopoly, it is difficult to put up prices when there is already price-resistance. Consumers do not have to go swimming, attend adult education classes or park cars in the high street, and nor are they moving house. Jacking-up charges to the point where users simply walk away will only lead councils down the road of withdrawing altogether from such services, leaving pools, gyms and libraries for the private sector to provide or not at all. Maybe then it will dawn on the public that local services they have taken for granted have ceased to exist.
Increasing fees to bring in other income is, like salami-slicing services, only a short-term solution. Councils, aided by new powers of competence, will need to be entrepreneurial, if they are to meet the downturn.
For those councils, especially districts, relying for part of their income from fees and charges, the private sector recession which struck in late 2007 saw a sharp downturn in residents’ spending. Westminster City, for example, estimated a drop of £50m in parking charges alone.
The property collapse meant a slump in planning applications and land search income. Cash-strapped residents cut back on swimming or gym use. One district chief executive told me two days after the CSR last month: ‘Two-thirds of my district’s income is in fees and charges, and we were badly hit by the recession.’
The economy remains fragile, the housing market has declined again, disposable income is squeezed by static wages, price rises in petrol, food, energy and clothing, and public spending cuts are giving people the jitters. In short, there is no evidence that residents are any more inclined to shell out more for local services.
So, the survey reported on page one finding that a more than two-thirds of council chiefs expect to see rises in local charges with one-third expecting them to be substantial reveals either naivity about consumer spending or desperation. Unless you are a monopoly, it is difficult to put up prices when there is already price-resistance. Consumers do not have to go swimming, attend adult education classes or park cars in the high street, and nor are they moving house. Jacking-up charges to the point where users simply walk away will only lead councils down the road of withdrawing altogether from such services, leaving pools, gyms and libraries for the private sector to provide or not at all. Maybe then it will dawn on the public that local services they have taken for granted have ceased to exist.
Increasing fees to bring in other income is, like salami-slicing services, only a short-term solution. Councils, aided by new powers of competence, will need to be entrepreneurial, if they are to meet the downturn.
Wednesday, 3 November 2010
The huge agenda for care services
This week’s national children and adult services conference in Manchester has been a sell-out, with a message on its website saying no more bookings could be taken – a rare achievement indeed at a time when most public sector association conferences have been struggling with declining delegate numbers.
But, it is not hard to see why such an event should be so popular. Turmoil, upheaval and plain fear stalk the corridors of upper-tier councils when it comes to children and adult care. Most county councils are little more than organisations helping children and vulnerable adults, and to them, as well as unitaries and Mets, both these services represent the budgets most out of control and causing their managements the greatest concern. Ever since the Baby Peter case, the number of children taken back into care has risen, along with the costs. Adult care costs are on an upward curve.
The prospect of more academies and free schools has rattled education authorities, which fear for their very existence as their schools opt out altogether. Against that, the recent and unexpected health White Paper promises huge new opportunities in public health and adult care for councils. And the £2bn for care announced in the CSR was one of the rare items of extra spending, a recognition at least by the coalition that this problem has to be addressed now.
As if this was not enough to fill a conference agenda for a month, mounting concerns over the impact of the housing benefit capping adds another dimension to the care agenda. There is, of course, major politicking going on about this decision, with Tory-controlled central London councils rowing with Labour outer London boroughs about who should pick up the bill for displaced families.
Aside from the politics, the decision poses another headache for councils such as Haringey, already grappling with escalating children’s service budgets and facing an influx of families from more expensive boroughs. One wonders why the Treasury felt that changes to child benefit could wait until 2013 while housing benefit capping, with potentially greater impact, albeit on a smaller number of families, kicks in next April. And as for council tax benefit… but that will have to wait for another conference.
But, it is not hard to see why such an event should be so popular. Turmoil, upheaval and plain fear stalk the corridors of upper-tier councils when it comes to children and adult care. Most county councils are little more than organisations helping children and vulnerable adults, and to them, as well as unitaries and Mets, both these services represent the budgets most out of control and causing their managements the greatest concern. Ever since the Baby Peter case, the number of children taken back into care has risen, along with the costs. Adult care costs are on an upward curve.
The prospect of more academies and free schools has rattled education authorities, which fear for their very existence as their schools opt out altogether. Against that, the recent and unexpected health White Paper promises huge new opportunities in public health and adult care for councils. And the £2bn for care announced in the CSR was one of the rare items of extra spending, a recognition at least by the coalition that this problem has to be addressed now.
As if this was not enough to fill a conference agenda for a month, mounting concerns over the impact of the housing benefit capping adds another dimension to the care agenda. There is, of course, major politicking going on about this decision, with Tory-controlled central London councils rowing with Labour outer London boroughs about who should pick up the bill for displaced families.
Aside from the politics, the decision poses another headache for councils such as Haringey, already grappling with escalating children’s service budgets and facing an influx of families from more expensive boroughs. One wonders why the Treasury felt that changes to child benefit could wait until 2013 while housing benefit capping, with potentially greater impact, albeit on a smaller number of families, kicks in next April. And as for council tax benefit… but that will have to wait for another conference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
